About your Search

20130319
20130319
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
, and it's got to go. [cheers and applause] ronald reagan omelet me down a couple -- only let me down a couple of times in eight years. one of those was 1986, and i still had the dent after i heard on the news he had signed the amnesty act of 1986. but it was on the promise that there would be law enforcement, and we would restore the rule of law and a million people would be legalized. but then from there on forward the law would be enforced. well, i made sure i kept my records right waiting for the ins to show up at my office, but i never saw them. neither did thousands of businesses. but the enforcement in re began era was greater than the enforcement in any succeeding administration, and now the law is so eroded, i sat in a hearing just a couple of days ago and heard la raza say, well, we want to provide comprehensive immigration reform, and after we restore the rule of law -- la raza's telling us they're restoring the rule of law by waiving it? they've eroded the rule of law. and republicans seem to forget of the 11 or 12 million that they say are here -- and i think it's 20 -- t
this segment of the party for whom no one is conservative enough. there was a -- listen, when ronald reagan was president, the people who represented what they thought was the -- you know, the real republican wing of the republican party, often complained about him, that he wasn't conservative enough to suit them either. sarah palin, despite having bailed out of public office, still has a following in the republican party, and you know, you criticize her, you hear about it. so does karl rove, he has influence with a lot of people who are prepared to put money behind his strategic thinking and the mistake that was made here that got rove into this trouble in my judgment is that when he and his group decided they were going to try to have influence in these primaries they announced that the people who felt that rove represented the failures of the bush years and so on, that was a red flag and you are seeing the reaction to it. >> bill: okay. but having talked to karl rove many, many times on this program, i can tell you that he is a guy who doesn't want a conservative litmus test to limit som
in college, it's becoming more difficult to raise children frankly in this culture. ronald reagan was very good as making what was known as reagan democrats fighting for him and i think our party has get an away from that. >> i know you have different views and come from a different place, but he was really the champion at high-level politics, hitting still on issues about sexual morality, on issues like abortion. i see the party as not moving away from those issues, even as some of the intellectual discussion in the party says that that stuff needs to be let behind. do you think that's the party's future or do you think it's only in the past? >> i would say there's two things. the mistake or trap we fall in is we allow ourselves to be singularly defined by those issues. i would argue that things like abortion is an important issue. however, we can't let our party only be about abortion. the second thing is a lot of people are looking at the demographics results and argue we need to be a different party. ultd say no. you're not foing to do that. i think the republican party has to be the s
my list. >> john: i guess ronald reagan is also off her list because reagan gave amnesty. are you surprised that ann coulter is fickle in they they are affection? >> i am. i trust everything that comes out of her. there is no one more abhor rent than she is. i can't believe they give her a platform. she gets under my nerves. >> john: were you surprised to see ann coulter to a flip flop on her savior and the most electable republican. >> she's rich for a reason. she's a salacious factory. an internet mean factory. that's why she's the best seller. >> you know i talk to joy behar about this a lot. she said she's a joke. but she's evil. >> john: but she talks evil. let's say that ann coulter comes to jesus and said we need to have love and respect for all of our human beings despite our differences. she would lose fans overnight. >> right she's not really for that party. she's not for anybody. she's for herself. she started this speech talking about her books and how many best sellers she has. >> john: hari wins the debate. what are they looking for? chris christie was one of the man
more difficult to raise children frankly in this culture. and ronald reagan was good making what was known as reagan democrats feel good he was fighting for them and our party has gotten away from that. >> your candidate in the primaries, don't mean to con flat you and mr. santorum, you have different views, come from a different place, he was really the champion of cultural politics at high level republican politics, hitting still on issues about gay rights, on issues about sexual morality, on issues like abortion. i see the party as not moving away from those issues, even as some of the intellectual discussion says that stuff needs to be left behind. is that the party's future or only the past? >> i would say there's two things. one, the mistake or trap we fall in is we allow ourselves to be singularly defined by those issues. i would argue things like abortion is an important issue. however, we can't let our party only be about abortion. sometimes we fall in the trap of letting that happen. second thing, a lot of people look at demographics and election results and say we have
's neoconservatism were alive and well in ronald reagan in george w. bush who promoted a conservatism marked by compassion and common sense for the every man. today's conservatism is perceived as matter high minded nor of the people. existing instead in some nether reger
ronald reagan. i saw them when i went to the saddam museum in baghdad. the neocons came to power with an agenda for regime change in iraq. on 9/11 they were salivating. the general of the joint chiefs at the time told me rumsfeld, wolfowitz, all these guys started iraq, iraq, iraq, at the first meeting after 9/11. the fact is these guys had a mission to try to redraw the maps of the middle east. that's a fact. and dick cheney did not invent the idea of the executive branch being a dictatorship when it comes to foreign policy in america. unfortunately president obama has continued some of the things cheney, rumsfeld and these guys laid the groundwork for earlier. my god, cheney headed up halliburton for the 1990s. he had oil on the mind all the time. the irony is the u.s. isn't winning the oil in iraq. these guys failed at their own game, the neocons. >> mike, as you look forward at iraq's, from iraq's current position into the future, what are your expectations for that nation? >> it's a great question, martin. you know, it's the crucial question, as we think about this day. i wa
principles fighters. at cpac 32 years ago ronald reagan attributed his victory to a set of principles, principles which were protected and nourished by a few unselfish americans through many grim and heartbreaking defeats. the reality today is grim and heartbreaking. we have so many reasons to be encouraged because we have unselfish americans around this country who are protecting and nourishing our principles. [applause] examples, examples like senator rand paul -- [cheers and applause] congressman louie gohmert. [cheers and applause] and a few steadfast, stalwart, principled fighters on capitol hill. and we have unselfish americans around this country. examples like our warriors in wisconsin who have been on the front lines fighting -- [inaudible] [applause] examples like michael -- [inaudible] jo ann terry -- [inaudible] who helped coordinate our efforts to defend representative democracy in their state as governor scott walker stood and acted on principle. [cheers and applause] one patriot stood at a town hall and challenged president obama questioning his demonization of the tea
, appointed by ronald reagan in 1987, but he's the author of the court's two most important gay rights decision. lawrence v. texas, which said that states could no longer ban consensual sodomy among consenting adults and the romer case from colorado. so he is certainly the most likely of the five republicans on the court to join the four democrats, at least on the defense of marriage act case, if not also on the proposition 8 case. there are two same-sex marriage cases to be argued next week. >> so, jimmy, if things don't go your way, if the justices like, you know, i'll just shorthand it, rule against same-sex marriage, rule out its constitutionality, what will you do? >> well, this issue is being talked about in every state. and the tenth amendment leaves marriage and family law to the states. and i think that there will be a state-by-state recognition that gay people should have the opportunity and the ability to get married and that will take just a longer conversation that we're having as a nation. and that's what we'll do. we'll continue to take it state by state and show that ma
egregious obvious example of that but even ronald reagan had to raise taxes seven times due to the fact that their other policies were shrinking the middle class. now when i say their economic policies are unsuccessful, that's because from my point of view, i want a healthy, thriving middle class. the progressive side of things liberals in this country, while we certainly care for the poor, we don't do it at the exclusion of the middle class our the exclusion of millionaires. but the middle class has been squeezed so horribly by the -- the -- you know, the promise of trickle-down economics and the chicago school of economics it just -- i mean from -- something as -- the heavy side of it and the shock doctrine, to the crap idea that somehow if you just let the job makers not pay taxes they will hide all of their money in vegas rather than the cayman islands and we'll all live off of the interest it's absurd nonsense that it's the bootstrapers and that anybody who finds themselves with cancer is just lazy ultimately in some way. it's their fault for having a crap
, hunger has been getting worse since the presidency of ronald reagan. we almost eradicated hunger in america in the late 1970's, but hunger has been getting steadily worse in the decades since. but the great recession, the worst economic period we've faced since the great depression, resulted in millions more people hungry. millions of people who had to turn to snap as the safety net that prevented them from going without word altogether. now, recognizing that hunger is a real problem and we need to end hunger now, i would hope that any budget proposed in this congress would at the very least do no harm for those that are struggling the most in our economy. yet, the ryan budget slashes snap once again. this should come as no surprise. this is basically the same budget he's introduced over the past few years and the same budget that voters have rejected over again and again. yes, mr. speaker, this is the same budget that turns medicare into a voucher, the same budget that repeals the affordable care act and the same budget that gives even more tax breaks to the wealthiest americans
the definition. but what i'd say -- i'd say what we have now is de facto amnesty. jon: yeah, the fact is ronald reagan signed the legislation in the mid '80s that was going to fix the immigration problem once and for all, and here we are 20 years lateerer, more than that, with, you know, 11 and 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. >> well, those events of the '80s still haunt the immigration debate today. an amnesty was given out, the border was not secured, and in the 2000s, especially under the administration of george push, there was a huge increase in the number of illegal immigrants. the one thing republicans do agree on is they need to do something about this. even the ones who think border security only is the way to go, they all feel they have to do something about it. the problem just cannot continue to exist as it has for the last decade. jon: well, and the speeches, maybe the presidential campaign speeches continue. we'll see how long it takes to get some legislative language out there. byron york, thank you. >> thank you, jon. jenna: well, a major american city dealing wit
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)